tv [untitled] November 21, 2010 9:30pm-10:00pm PST
vote and approved of the relocation plan so it can move forward. as you know, this is a project that the chinatown community has advocated for for over 15 years now. we believe it will bring significant transportation benefits to the community, and we also believe it will create an anchor for the future stability of chinatown, both in terms of attracting a further infrastructure money in terms of affordable housing, and money that can support the small businesses there. with regards to the specific issues of relocation, i want to point out that issues around the relocation of the low-income residents in the building were things that we brought up, almost nine months ago with the mta. i'm happy to report we have been able to work closely with them, and i'm also happy to report that mta has taken an unprecedented step of committing to not only relocating the tenants under the existing federal law, which they were
required to anyway, but to take the further step and replaced the housing that they demolished with affordable housing in chinatown and to provide the residents that are being displaced with a right of first refusal to live in affordable housing for the remainder of however long they want to be there. this is a rarity among transportation agencies. it is not something that you see in other parts of the country, and i do think mta needs to be applauded for working so closely with community representatives on this issue. i do want to point out, however, at this point, there are some commercial tenants over there. i certainly think that we are heading in the right direction, and i believe that mta is working hard to make sure that the commercial tenants will be in the same position as the residential tenants. thank you. supervisor maxwell: thank you. any further public comment?
seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: i want to thank all the parties who have been working on the wrestling these thorny relocation issues together. thank the staff for working with our commercial tenants to make sure this gets done. colleagues, i would ask that we vote unanimously to move this forward. my vote is really predicated on the work that has been done thus far and the assumption that we will be able to get to a good place. i certainly hope, as was just mentioned, that not only can we make sure our residential tenants are taken care of, but also our commercial tenants receive what they need to to move on with the significant transitions that they have, and i look forward to working with all of you to make sure that happens. supervisor maxwell: thank you. since our city touts so much about small business, i'm glad to hear we are trying to take care of them. again, thank muni, and i want to
captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor mirkarimi: very good. welcome. i would like to thank sf g t v for their fine work in covering this. madam clerk, please read the roll call. >> [roll call] supervisor mirkarimi: i expect commissioner mar to join us shortly. please read item #2. >> [reads item] supervisor mirkarimi: any public comment that of public comment
is closed. that is taken without objection. very good. item #3. >> recommend annual compensation for executive director for fiscal year 2010-2011. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. malkovich. >> this is a follow up your last meeting that took place in june. according to our code, the authority board must provide for the director. the original date or deadline for compensation was june 30. at the september meeting of the board, the board chose of every year. while anticipating a complicated
month in september, scheduling board and committee meetings, i figured that i would bring this to you now so that we would comply with the deadline. the last board meeting was the 15th. this seems like a timely moment to consider this. what i brought you, in the spirit of full disclosure, normally this is taken up in the same meeting where you evaluate my performance. but because there was a change requested by the board in the time line for making the determination, you already have done my performance evaluation on june 29. at this time the committee gave a score of 4.5, which is
between good and outstanding in our rankings system. at the time the committee chose to defer action compensation given that the budget was still going on. so, it really is not my intent, and i do not think it would be appropriate, to rehash the poor performance evaluation memo, but there were a number of things that happened this year that were of great significance. between the bus rapid transit project and the still parking project, this year we brought in over $200 million worth of federal funds directly out of the authorities advocacy. what we envision for this coming year is a pretty heavy-duty schedule of activity. not just to continue dealing
with projects that are of significance in the program, including the central subway and presidio parkway. the number of studies that we have, the next step in building the rams project, $100 million of federal money that we have secured, and also because i see more closely related to my own function as an authority a very significant workload in terms of advocacy both here and washington, d.c. there have been major see changes in both places. the main concern will be positioned in san francisco programs in the new house. we are blessed with the representation that we have in congress, but i think that the key, and some and we have discussed with those representatives, is that we need
to be prepared. we do well because we have a great partnership between the technical and staffing of the partnerships that we have. and the great advocates see that we have in the house and senate. but you need things that are well thought out and prepared ahead of time. we also need the ability to essentially market the program through the merit of the projects and other people in washington. including people in the administration and on the field. i anticipate that with the changing in congress, there is going to be an extra added workload of preparing and positioning the program in washington, d.c.. there will also be a significant amount of pressure to participate and have substantial roles in the development of the surface transportation act, which is a first-year federal
funding bill. in sacramento, of course, a new administration an opportunity to develop new opportunities for our program. i expect to be quite busy this year. in addition that, -- in addition to that, closer to home, transportation planning staff retention, this would seem unusual at a time of economic downturn, but the funds that have flooded the transportation field and which we are puzzling through for the next couple of years means that there is competition to attract the best and brightest engineers and planners. so, we have to be careful to set up a really good staff mentoring
and training retention plan. those of the kinds of things that i have to work on. i feel that this coming year is a year of significant challenge. looking back, officially the last time the board of compensation for me was may of 2008. so, we have a compensation charge that is several years old. to believe we do a survey every two years but i have not bothered because we are swamped with other things. but it is time to do that. regardless of what happens today or what the board chooses to do, we will be doing a survey for the next fiscal year. i am hoping that you will consider and will be happy with whatever decision the to make. supervisor mirkarimi: comments
or questions at the moment? supervisor mar: in may of 2008, what was the increase at the personnel at that time? >> [unintelligible] supervisor mar: from step four to step five? >> it was actually from step 32 step 5. -- step 3 to step 5. our project is the highest rank in the nation with more of an increase and i should point out that there is no proposition increase, these all have merit increases.
supervisor mirkarimi: as you correctly frame, the discussion that we had on this originated back in june. the normal cycle for this discussion is usually of a june to june basis. based on the fact that we decided to have a meeting inserted now, do you think that that should adjust our allocation in terms of steps? or does keeping to that level -- what i detected from you when you were making those comments was that this was new and different from what was done in the past to. based on everything we have achieved over this last year,
with regards to consideration, do you think that that could call for us to hold back in terms of making the adjustments? >> are you talking about the adjustments or the regional activity? supervisor mirkarimi: adjustments. >> commissioners, it is entirely your call. i certainly do not want to put to in a difficult position as far as policy, but this is the first time i have held policy commission as i m appointed by the board but an employee of the authority. it is essentially, your pleasure. your call. it is not clear from the memo
how we resolve the issue of adjustments in this case. the adjustment is to be for the fiscal year. i would not expect that he would make a retroactive statement adjustment. in fact, i would propose to the board if it is your pleasure and clarification, essentially the budget is done on a fiscal year. all that we would do would be amendments of salary for the first half of the year so that you do not feel that you need to make a retroactive adjustment. salary from january 1 through december 31, we would essentially divide that through the fiscal years. that way when you make a decision, it is not retroactive. were you to make an adjustment
today, it would be effective only january 1 and for the next six months. actually, for the next year, starting january 1. supervisor mirkarimi: understood. colleagues? supervisor mar: thank you. i am torn about this. on the one hand i think it makes sense. it is well deserved and i think that a step increase with no increase having taken place over the last 2.5 years seems reasonable. especially considering how it compares to other agencies in the jurisdiction. the only concern is that we have a tough budget year.
that is the only hold back for me. in terms of how reasonable this would be, it makes sense. that is my only hesitation. >> i would want to clarify this for the public that might be watching, the authority budget is separate from the city budget. the staffing and expense is actually budgeted. you are not required on any level a change to the adopted budget. the other thing but you say in the process -- the other thing that you say in the process compared to last time, it is not necessarily a choice between
zero and convincing. i am not advocating between -- for convincing. supervisor mirkarimi: you had mentioned that there might be another opportunity in december or another opportunity of meeting-was to address this. correct? >> the meeting schedule includes a meeting on december 8, i believe, which already has plans and programs in the same morning. which is why i suggest putting this one on top of that one. the board meeting on the 15, essentially i did not suggest in deference to the board because i feel uncomfortable having the committee vote on something right before the board, then
bringing the items in. it is entirely the goal and we can make notice and everything, but i feel it is always best when it is that we can have a committee meeting to have a chance to consider these things. something that was proposed just a few moments before. it's good not to get rid of this one again. are any executive level staff that has received increases? >> cost of living increases. >> the staff of the authority does not receive cost-of-living increases based entirely on performance. everyone has received increased this year.
admittedly, there have not been huge increases because we are mindful of the budget situation. people are getting these increases because of our compensation scale not being as generous as other agencies included but because we knew about prime the total burden, is considered a small supervisor mar: -- small. supervisor mar: i realize that this is a separate budget and that as you have laid out in the memo, the tremendous work you
have done. i will bite the bullet in and say that i recommend an increase to step six to fix compensation ford executive director fiscal year 2010-2011. i will make that motion. supervisor campos: 5 will also support that motion. the way that i see, as currently in place, it is a step system. flex a very good -- supervisor mirkarimi: very good. any public comment on this item? all right, public comment disclosed. commissioners? madam clerk, please read by the
laws 4 and 5. >> item 4, introduction of new items. item five, public comment. supervisor mirkarimi: and the introduction of new items for public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. next item, please? >> item #6, adjournment. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. >> [inaudible] supervisor mirkarimi: it was during item 4 and 5. it was announced three times. nevertheless, we will reopen this. >> thank you very much. i want to speak to the overall central subway plan.
is it not 10:30? supervisor campos: it is 9:53 right now. supervisor mirkarimi: we are in a personnel hearing out. i will not discount that. public comment is public comment. >> you have a big thing on the capital funding of the central subway, but nowhere does this document actually deal with increases to muni when you operate the central subway buses on the surface. you have to maintain on the surface with the people that get done at the marina to transfer at washington street. they are not going to do that. they will just stay on a little bit longer. you will have all of these buses running. you will have a double system to
maintain. muni has so many problems. you know. some of us are looking to find out where in the documents of the federal government did they cover this expected additional course? we have not found it yet. we are still looking. they may have given us enough information to deal with it and use it. this is going to be a real hardship on muni. $20 million for one spot. the thing is, this was not a bad thing that they did, but they did not game the system. they used the system in a way to support a project that everyone wanted. but it proves that it does not work that way. people are not going to want to transfer. people will just wait a minute.
on a perceived cases and an actual basis, they will find it is faster to use a bus that really works. they went out to 2030 and said that there would be loads of traffic. you know how many programs you guys are dealing with to reduce traffic downtown? when you double, increased traffic is projected to double the time that it takes. meaning it will double card time. you are getting something, we do not know what it is. muni will have all sorts of little improvements, timing of the lights, speeding up service. because it is not firmly known. i do not know what that means. then they did not do the entire job, according to federal
standards. so, we may end up with a $1 billion deal that will not work. more people will come in later. they do, i must change my clock. supervisor mirkarimi: quite okay, thank you for your insight. any other public comment? ok. we will continue forward. i believe it that you said we were in the adjournment? thank you, everyone. plans and programs is coming up next.